I went to see this film last weekend and I was mildly dissapointed. It's not a bad movie, but clearly below average.
And it leaves absolutely nothing, *nothing*, when you walk out of the cinema there are no unansvered questions and the movie isn't making any point.
If I told you that you realy don't see anything horrible in the movie, I would have spoiled all the film for you, it's that bad. The only thing that holds up the film the whole time is that it is making the surroundings look creapy with the help of music and sound effects. And even that gets bored after 30 minutes.
I doubt there are many people who will want to watch this file the second time.
And my question is : What realy generated all this hype ?? C'mon if a unknown website got millions of hits even before the opening, it's got to be professionally planned and engineered hype !
-- Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
In an exclusive interview with The New Yorker's Ken Auletta, Gates said, "We've always wanted to settle this thing. ... ... But, Gates added, the settlement had to be of a type that would allow Microsoft to continue to be an innovative technology leader.
You missed the point, who cares if he gets 30 responses like "Your article was incorrect in claiming that the Linux kernel does not have support for multiple processors, it has had this feature since version 2.2x. Thank you.".
If he wrote that article as FUD from the start, the he realy doesn't give a shit.
If you *stop* writing, then MS will *realy* have something interesting to talk about.
>>So? Are we trying to produce good software, or give MS things to talk about?
Not all of us write code, those that don't can bark at the gorilla.
-- Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
What realy happens when nobody ever gets flamed for a bad (wrong) paid FUD ??
If somebody is getting paid for writing the FUD, do you realy think he cares if he gets a few 'corrections' to his "article" ???
How many do you think will take there time to create a good pice of ansver to a obvious Microsoft FUD ?
You folks realy can't be searious stating that "flames are bad for us" ? It's the silence that is.
Imaging this:
Scenerio: Nobody ever flames a Linux article.
Microsoft spokesman: "We have recently been getting only a tiny fraction of responces, we used to get, on our lates OS benchmark reports. Some of them have a valid points some are right out wrong. We understand this as interest in the so called "Linux" operating system has decreased drastically. We are glad to be able to put this small issue behind us and concentrate on what consumers *realy* want.
MS will *always* try to take advantage of any situation. It doesn't matter what you write to them, they will try to gain something from it.
The bottom line is: Say what ever you feal like !
Let everybody talk, everybody from Little angry Johny to Linus himself should be heard.
-- Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
It seems strange to me that so many people have managed to read something from the article that isn't there..
RIAA is *not* and I repeat *not* after your Win/Lin/Mac/ABC software player.
RIAA just want's to create a viable way to market there own new technology. Technology that will be implemented both in software players on your PC and hardware portable players.
They understand that without MP3 they will get no market share (= no acceptance, no users).
What they are trying to do is to co-exist with MP3 and try to limit the damage caused by MP3.
This simply means that the proprietary software on the portable players they hope to sell next cristmas, won't play pirated MP3. Exactly how, or if, it will work is not our problem.
Let them find it out, but RIAA beware, it is enough that only one person finds a way around it and : >poof, every MP3 on the internet will again be playable in the new players.
Is it only me or doesn't it seem strange that Mindcraft insists on .
1) Use the Setup from Test #2
2) Use the tuning parameters from Test #2
After all, they were being critisised for not giving enough information to be helped.
If they were realy interested In comparing the two product they would allow any patches to the NT/Linux kernels/drivers, after all, that it what customers are going to use, the latest and best.
They seem only interested in the old results, not the right results.
The Security Problem Caused by Open Source: by Lewis A. Mettler, Esq See: http://freehosting.at.webjump.com/le/lewismettle r-software-engineering/SecurityProblem.htm l
Simply put, this guy doesn't understand Security at all. The point he is trying to make is that since anybody has access to the source code anybody can modify the OS to grant user 'xyz' root priviliges. Simply by modifying the source code, reinstall the OS, and : voila, you have a root called "mburns".
/quote/ Can a similar attack take place without the source code? The short answer is "No, it can not". /end quote/
I doubt this guy has ever heard of "wrappers" and how they can be used to make the system do whatever you want. And you don't need a single line of the OS source code:
All it does is change the default umask before running the actual ftp daemon. (You point inetd to the wrapper instead the ftp daemon) As a programing exercise you can let it grant write permission to everybody on/etc/passwd. (Or set the password of 'sync' to "abcd" and give it a proper shell.)
I also think this guy has never heard of how to hide your tracks on a unix system. (Playing hide and seek, Unix style (Phrack magazine))
The bottom line is that what this guy is trying to state is a non-issue. Yes, it's possible but it's not an problem. Somebody stealing your RAM is a real problem.
If you are an administrator and your users have means of reinstalling the OS on whataver platform you happend to be running, "You got problems mister !, and your users actually replacing the OS with there own version is the least of them."
Thanks to./ to put the "2dumb4us" filter on this guy and not post his writings (as he's complaining about))
When you ban some name, the general public responce is to refer to the same thing under a different name. So, Everybody would simply rename there files to *.luv or something as silly.
The very Idea that it is illegal to index all the MP3 files on the Internet just because some kiddies are pirating music, is just nonsense.
Don't even think for a moment that nobody would taka advantage of it, if this would pass.
Why not hold Altavista responsible for the contend they point to ?
Since the argument is gone that OSF Software makes up >50% of all Linux distributions, the only argument left is that Linux was "inspired" by the GPL Idea..
Give credit where credit is due, like Documentation/Thanks, but don't change the product name.
Linux distributions may be based heavily on GNU software but the thing we love and admire is still "Linux".
"McNealy made the remarks in response to a question about what privacy safeguards Sun (SUNW) would be considering for Jini. The technology is designed to allow various consumer devices to communicate and share processing resources with one another. "
Slashdot Mirror
Look up between the trees and you will see that there aren't any more trees 20-or-so meters from where the actors are standing.
Not a big mistake but it quite annoyed me while I watched the movie.
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
I don't get it, I realy don't.
I went to see this film last weekend and I was mildly dissapointed. It's not a bad movie, but clearly below average.
And it leaves absolutely nothing, *nothing*, when you walk out of the cinema there are no unansvered questions and the movie isn't making any point.
If I told you that you realy don't see anything horrible in the movie, I would have spoiled all the film for you, it's that bad. The only thing that holds up the film the whole time is that it is making the surroundings look creapy with the help of music and sound effects. And even that gets bored after 30 minutes.
I doubt there are many people who will want to watch this file the second time.
And my question is : What realy generated all this hype ?? C'mon if a unknown website got millions of hits even before the opening, it's got to be professionally planned and engineered hype !
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
In an exclusive interview with The New Yorker's Ken Auletta, Gates said, "We've always wanted to settle this thing.
...
...
But, Gates added, the settlement had to be of a type that would allow Microsoft to continue to be an innovative technology leader.
...
http://www.nypostonline.com/business/ 1406.htm
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
The server only allows 10 simultaneus connections, soon to be
Here is a mirror for those that want to have a look:
ftp://195.115.13.16/pub/Max/max-2.4.5.tar.gz
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
You missed the point, who cares if he gets 30 responses like "Your article was incorrect in claiming that the Linux kernel does not have support for multiple processors, it has had this feature since version 2.2x. Thank you.".
If he wrote that article as FUD from the start, the he realy doesn't give a shit.
If you *stop* writing, then MS will *realy* have something interesting to talk about.
>>So? Are we trying to produce good software, or give MS things to talk about?
Not all of us write code, those that don't can bark at the gorilla.
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
What realy happens when nobody ever gets flamed for a bad (wrong) paid FUD ??
If somebody is getting paid for writing the FUD, do you realy think he cares if he gets a few 'corrections' to his "article" ???
How many do you think will take there time to create a good pice of ansver to a obvious Microsoft FUD ?
You folks realy can't be searious stating that "flames are bad for us" ? It's the silence that is.
Imaging this:
Scenerio: Nobody ever flames a Linux article.
Microsoft spokesman: "We have recently been getting only a tiny fraction of responces, we used to get, on our lates OS benchmark reports. Some of them have a valid points some are right out wrong. We understand this as interest in the so called "Linux" operating system has decreased drastically. We are glad to be able to put this small issue behind us and concentrate on what consumers *realy* want.
MS will *always* try to take advantage of any situation. It doesn't matter what you write to them, they will try to gain something from it.
The bottom line is:
Say what ever you feal like !
Let everybody talk, everybody from Little angry Johny to Linus himself should be heard.
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
You own what you write, idiotic or not.
Beeing "right" is no excuse for violating anybodys rights.
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
It seems strange to me that so many people have managed to read something from the article that isn't there..
RIAA is *not* and I repeat *not* after your Win/Lin/Mac/ABC software player.
RIAA just want's to create a viable way to market there own new technology. Technology that will be implemented both in software players on your PC and hardware portable players.
They understand that without MP3 they will get no market share (= no acceptance, no users).
What they are trying to do is to co-exist with MP3 and try to limit the damage caused by MP3.
This simply means that the proprietary software on the portable players they hope to sell next cristmas, won't play pirated MP3. Exactly how, or if, it will work is not our problem.
Let them find it out, but RIAA beware, it is enough that only one person finds a way around it and : >poof, every MP3 on the internet will again be playable in the new players.
Didn't anybody read the article yesterday about the oil company, processing data worth 600M$ on Beowoulf Linux cluster.
One of the engineers even posted to the thread.
Now, boy, give that man a blanket !!
Is it only me or doesn't it seem strange that Mindcraft insists on .
1) Use the Setup from Test #2
2) Use the tuning parameters from Test #2
After all, they were being critisised for not giving enough information to be helped.
If they were realy interested In comparing the two product they would allow any patches to the NT/Linux kernels/drivers, after all, that it what customers are going to use, the latest and best.
They seem only interested in the old results, not the right results.
The Geeks aint complaining about nobody "in person", they are complaining about what is beeing done to them "in person".
You are a geek, you go to schoolm you are picked on "in person".
You are a "jock", you go to school, you just blend in, it wasn't you who did anything !
What is REALY your point ???
You realy want that ??
The kids wil win, you know that don't you ??
Besides, thay will stop trusting you !
Is it worth it ??
We know he isn't stupid so...
When BG says there is no central point of control
he must be refering to GNU/Linux
And there he is correct.
Right ?
The Security Problem Caused by Open Source:e r-software-engineering/SecurityProblem.htm l
...");
/etc/passwd.
./ to put the "2dumb4us" filter on this guy and not post
./ !!
by Lewis A. Mettler, Esq
See:
http://freehosting.at.webjump.com/le/lewismettl
Simply put, this guy doesn't understand Security at all. The point he
is trying to make is that since anybody has access to the source code
anybody can modify the OS to grant user 'xyz' root priviliges.
Simply by modifying the source code, reinstall the OS, and : voila,
you have a root called "mburns".
/quote/
Can a similar attack take place without the source code?
The short answer is "No, it can not".
/end quote/
I doubt this guy has ever heard of "wrappers" and how they can be used
to make the system do whatever you want. And you don't need a single
line of the OS source code:
Here is one:
#include
#include
main(int argc, char *argv[], char *env[])
{
char *args[]={"/usr/sbin/in.ftpd", "in.ftpd", 0};
umask(0755);
execve ("/usr/sbin/in.ftpd", args, env);
perror("Something is seriously wrong mister
}
Complicated ehh, ? (I made it all by myself ma !)
All it does is change the default umask before running the actual
ftp daemon. (You point inetd to the wrapper instead the ftp daemon)
As a programing exercise you can let it grant write permission to
everybody on
(Or set the password of 'sync' to "abcd" and give it a proper shell.)
I also think this guy has never heard of how to hide your tracks on
a unix system. (Playing hide and seek, Unix style (Phrack magazine))
The bottom line is that what this guy is trying to state is a non-issue.
Yes, it's possible but it's not an problem. Somebody stealing your
RAM is a real problem.
If you are an administrator and your users have means of reinstalling
the OS on whataver platform you happend to be running, "You got problems
mister !, and your users actually replacing the OS with there own version
is the least of them."
Thanks to
his writings (as he's complaining about))
Viva la revolution, viva la liberté, viva
When you ban some name, the general public responce is to refer to the same thing under a different name.
So, Everybody would simply rename there files to *.luv or something as silly.
The very Idea that it is illegal to index all the MP3 files on the Internet just because some kiddies are pirating music, is just nonsense.
Don't even think for a moment that nobody would taka advantage of it, if this would pass.
Why not hold Altavista responsible for the contend they point to ?
Astalavista would close for sure !
1) How is it known that lpd_value_1 will be
"http://www.kipling.com/hacker/game/login.html" after the decryption ?
2) Does anybody know what will be the value of lpd_value_2 after the decryption ?
Yes,
GNU/RedHat, GNU/Caldera, GNU/Mozilla.
Since the argument is gone that OSF Software makes up >50% of all Linux distributions, the only argument left is that Linux was "inspired" by the GPL Idea..
Give credit where credit is due, like Documentation/Thanks, but don't change the product
name.
Linux distributions may be based heavily on GNU software but the thing we love and admire is still "Linux".
Why add GNU to the name ??
Do we want to start naming products Water/Coke, Fat/Dougnut and Plastic/Computer ?
Quoting the article:
"McNealy made the remarks in response to a
question about what privacy safeguards
Sun (SUNW) would be considering for Jini.
The technology is designed to allow various
consumer devices to communicate and
share processing resources with one
another. "